Contents

Manny Coto is mentioned NOWHERE in this article. B&B are of all things, and it's put me in doubt over whether ANY of the writing credits are correct on the episode lists. Someone should definitely RECHECK. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by80.5.160.8 (talk).

Rechecked. The episode was written by Rick Berman & Brannon Braga, as stated in the article. And may I recommend some neuro-pressure? -- From Andoria with Love 09:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The background info section stated that Anthony Montgomery did not appear in this episode, but I just watched it and saw him in it (at the end when Archer is talking to the captain of the other ship) and as such removed the note. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by24.10.70.56 (talk).

This is something not included in any other article, but I would recommend including a section about how different the content is in this episode from others. In any other episode, the captain of the ship would've granted the asylum and would have been the first to suggest that intervention should take place to assure the rights of the cogenitors and, if refused, they would work to undermine the culture or cease dealings with the species in question. Instead, the captain does something completely out of character for him or any other main captain in a ST series and then blaims Tucker for the cogenitors suicide when clearly it was the fault of Archer for not granting the asylum. Even in this series you see time and time again when the exact opposite action is taken, like in the episode "Rogue Planet". Universal rights for sentient species are always upheld, and even literally fought for sometimes, over cultural traditions. For instance, all those times in TOS when Kirk risked his life to free a planet from the influence of a computer, even if the people wanted the computer as their leader as in "The Apple". This episode was so out of the norm for ST that it almost seems non-canonical. (24.31.118.241 01:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

Indeed, the idea that it is better to be an ignorant slave than to be self-aware and free is goes against themes common in Star Trek (at least especially in TOS). For whatever it's worth, the captain's attitude in this episode is morally reprehensible, from the standpoint of individuality and self-autonomy. However, in later incarnations of Star Trek, there has at times been been a conflicting and subtle "we know what's best for the people," anti-individual, anti-autonomy theme. For example, the mocking portrayal of the Ferengi as an example of "what happens" when individuals pursue their own ends. There are other examples. This episode takes the anti-autonomy theme to the extreme.97.83.104.146 23:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

While those are interesting subjects to discuss, the purpose of MA is not to discuss the themes and aspects of the episodes. -- 31dot 23:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, This episode almost seems to have a disturbing moral message. It's plagued with illogical inconsistencies with the nature of Human rights. It would be like saying people in North Korea don't have Human rights because they have a different culture, something that is blatantly false as it's generally agreed that *all* people have basic intrinsic Human rights and that has nothing to do with what culture, or nation or even planet they come from. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by76.22.16.126 (talk).

You are forgetting something. As far as Star Trek goes, humans didn't go into speace to tell other cultures that they run into how to live their lives. Like T'Pol said, "They are not human." --205.188.116.202 03:44, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I checked this page just to see if there was anything about the "controversial" ending. It seemed extremely out of character for Archer not to take Trip's side on this one, and totally over the top and ridiculous for him to lay on the guilt trip (no pun intended) at the end there. It wasn't as bad as Dear Doctor, but it was close. He wasn't committing genocide this time, just reminding us that his moral compass flips poles based on who wrote the episode that week. 99.129.135.10 02:29, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

And this the perfect time for a quote from ol' Captain Barechest

Kirk: Spock, you want to know something?, Everybody's Human.

Captain Spock: I find that remark... insulting.

Certainly applies in this case. Human rights are defined as inalienable and absolute, not culturally relative. That's why there are so few of them, and they're so basic. And important! Like yer man said about the Koreans. Slavery is always bad. It was bad even in the USA when it was legal and popular (among the white people).

Just saw this episode (too young to be a Star Trek fan when it aired) and I agree, it's definitely out of character for Captain Archer. I don't think what Tucker did was any worse than when Archer interfered with the Suliban prison camps. I expected Archer to reprimand Tucker, for not consulting with him about the situation before acting, but I really was expecting Archer to grant the alien asylum.

What I think happened with the writers was that they didn't want to add a new alien character to the ship, and had to shoehorn a way to return back to the TV status quo. If the cogenitor was granted asylum, and then the cogenitor died because Tucker did not know cogenitors die when they don't dispense the enzyme, it would have hammered home the message more strongly. --- – The preceding unsigned comment was added by68.52.86.51 (talk).

As stated above, article talk pages are not for discussion about the themes and aspects of the episode. 31dot 23:07, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

I see it as as an interesting resolution that the episode is left without a... well, satisfactory reosolution. It's an ongoing story, right? Archer didn't want another hostile first contact and came pretty close this time around. I think the events of this episode will contribute to the canon in the creation of the Prime Directive (correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem to exist yet). They haven't learned it yet, if you catch my drift. This is Archer trying to learn from his mistakes. On the other hand, something crucial was never reflected upon by the characters: 3 % of Vissians are cogenitors, and without cogenitors, the population will not reproduce. They have to keep the cogenitors under some sort of control to make sure they don't use their special nature against the rest. They might decide who gets to have children and who doesn't. Reminds me of some mistakes the humanity has made. Their solution is to remove certain individual privileges from the cogenitors - they aren't allowed to learn or anything. They have to be cut off from their intellectual capacities. For the good of the many, few must suffer. Trip is on the right track, and Archer grasps that track, too... but Archer is also trying hard to learn what will eventually become the Prime Directive. His vehicle is then to ignore this... but it's weird that it doesn't occur to Archer or the Vissians to take a distance to the matter and observe it like I just did. I think that, eventually Archer would have come to the same conclusions and turned the cogenitor away... however, the reprimands to Trip would have been totally different. It would still be an unsatisfactory resolution for the viewer, but a softer one. Maybe the writers thought: insert a fair bit of ignorance. This is NOT the almighty Starfleet of the 24th century yet. Right? – The preceding unsigned comment was added byJerryteacup (talk • contribs).

and Celestial Navigation and Mr. Willis of Ohio, which may be a reference to West Wing episodes of the same name.

I've left the comment about the Klingon ship's ability, but I'm uncertain as to its relevance to the episode, because it is not said that the writers made such an ability deliberately similar. Perhaps it could be noted on the page about the Vissian ship itself, as it is more relevant to that. -- 31dot 14:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)